3 ms·

I don't get it. When I look at that Camera on Amazon it looks like a camera for photographs, not for video. Why would they shoot a movie with this?

callmeed 17y ago
(a) it shoots 1080p on a really good chip and (b) you can put pro canon lenses on it
MikeCapone 17y ago
Publicity for Canon? Create online buzz? Because it's a technical challenge? Less expensive? To get a different looks from other shows? Take your pick.
swilliams 17y ago
It shoots at 1080 with a great sensor, and can mount some very nice lenses for a relatively low price. Plus the 5DmkII is no slouch in the low-light/high-iso arena. Vincent Laforet has been at the forefront of this since the 5DmkII came out. See this: http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326 http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&#3... It has some warts since it is a still camera shooting video, but is still capable turning out some truly stunning results.
- maxklein 17y ago
  You seem to know your stuff. So if I get a Nikon D90, what quality of video am I looking at?
  - blhack 17y ago
    This: http://www.youtube.com/blhack#p/a/u/0/aWfbEfa5Jpk http://www.youtube.com/blhack#p/a/u/0/aWfbEfa5Jpk I have a D90. It is not usable as a motion picture camera at all. You need to evaluate if you're buying a motion camera, or a still camera. The D90 is a fantastic still camera...but if you're just getting into photo and don't have an investment in lenses...get the 5D.
  - PStamatiou 17y ago
    I have the D90 and have played the Canon. The D90 is no where near the same page for quality. It only does 720p for one and second it has a "jelly" motion issue where the sensor is not fast enough and if you move while shooting it gives a weird effect. Also you can only shoot five minutes at a time then the sensor needs to cool down.
  - ascuttlefish 17y ago
    If you don't pan at all, and use AE/AF lock effectively, you can shoot some decent 720p shots of static objects. Otherwise, fuggedaboutit. I shot about 3 clips with mine before giving up. I bought it for still shots, but this Canon makes me a bit envious.
  - swilliams 17y ago
    I believe there as an update to the video processing on the D90 which removes a good amount of the jello-cam that blhack demonstrated. Although as an HD video camera, the D90 is still a little lacking (no 1080). As a stills camera, it is excellent. Disclaimer: I use Nikon cameras (though not for video).
    - blhack 17y ago
      Do you mean a firmware update? I hadn't heard anything about that (but would love to) Do you have a link? My googling is failing me :(
      - swilliams 17y ago
        Yeah, I looked too, I might have misremembered, or been thinking of D3s or something. Bummer.
- yread 17y ago
  A friend of mine has a Canon SX1 which also has full HD video and it looks great. Sometimes the video looks even better than the pictures
anigbrowl 17y ago
Yes, it does; but it also can shoot video. I recently worked on a feature shot with a similar camera, and own one myself for the same reason. Why use it this way? 3 reasons. 1. cost - it's dirt cheap compared to equivalent camcorders, and there is a very wide selection of lenses and accessories. Not as well optimized for the needs of moving pictures as other lenses (which have fewer glass elements but are easier to focus thanks to the way they are constructed) but nowhere near as expensive either. for perspective, a set of cine primes (fixed focal length lenses built for film use with industry-standard mounting connectors) can cost $250,000...or more. you can buy/rent and insure good quality still lenses for vastly less, and the disadvantages they impose are not all that serious. 2. Portability. a small indie film crew is 10 people and the camera is very obvious. A small crew shooting with a DSLR and an audio recorder can be as few as 3 people, which means you can shoot a scene in the middle of a busy street without attracting much attention. It is just so much more convenient, and saves even more money and time. the only downside to this is the ego sacrifice required to give up a big important-looking camera and the support staff required to babysit it. Instead you can just get a few of these things and shoot from multiple angles simultaneously which is an absolute godsend for editors, actors, producers, etc. Industry folk do love their high-tech gear but until recently things were at a pitch where the gear had to some extent become an end in itself and one had to spend a lot of money just to set it up every day before you photographed a single frame of the actual subject matter. 3. Light. These newer cameras have big sensors (the Canon 5DII in particular has a very large sensor for the available price) which means they can get a good-looking image with way less light than a typical pro video camera (and in turn that makes it easier to control the focus of the image). So you don't need truckloads full of lights...or the time to set the up...or all the noise of a generator to power them...or a bunch of grips to lift and carry them...and you don't have a forest of aluminum stands with lights and reflectors all over the set: which means you have a great deal more freedom in where you put the camera and how you move it around. In short, they are awesome. There are some limitations, and some things you have to do differently in order to maintain image quality compared to other methods...but they are not that onerous and the cost savings are enormously worth it. I would never want to go back to the style of a big industrial set festooned with heavy equipment and crews. Small is beautiful.

callmeed 17y ago

(a) it shoots 1080p on a really good chip and (b) you can put pro canon lenses on it

MikeCapone 17y ago

Publicity for Canon? Create online buzz? Because it's a technical challenge? Less expensive? To get a different looks from other shows? Take your pick.

swilliams 17y ago

It shoots at 1080 with a great sensor, and can mount some very nice lenses for a relatively low price. Plus the 5DmkII is no slouch in the low-light/high-iso arena. Vincent Laforet has been at the forefront of this since the 5DmkII came out. See this: http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2326 http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&#3... It has some warts since it is a still camera shooting video, but is still capable turning out some truly stunning results.

maxklein 17y ago
You seem to know your stuff. So if I get a Nikon D90, what quality of video am I looking at?
- blhack 17y ago
  This: http://www.youtube.com/blhack#p/a/u/0/aWfbEfa5Jpk http://www.youtube.com/blhack#p/a/u/0/aWfbEfa5Jpk I have a D90. It is not usable as a motion picture camera at all. You need to evaluate if you're buying a motion camera, or a still camera. The D90 is a fantastic still camera...but if you're just getting into photo and don't have an investment in lenses...get the 5D.
- PStamatiou 17y ago
  I have the D90 and have played the Canon. The D90 is no where near the same page for quality. It only does 720p for one and second it has a "jelly" motion issue where the sensor is not fast enough and if you move while shooting it gives a weird effect. Also you can only shoot five minutes at a time then the sensor needs to cool down.
- ascuttlefish 17y ago
  If you don't pan at all, and use AE/AF lock effectively, you can shoot some decent 720p shots of static objects. Otherwise, fuggedaboutit. I shot about 3 clips with mine before giving up. I bought it for still shots, but this Canon makes me a bit envious.
- swilliams 17y ago
  I believe there as an update to the video processing on the D90 which removes a good amount of the jello-cam that blhack demonstrated. Although as an HD video camera, the D90 is still a little lacking (no 1080). As a stills camera, it is excellent. Disclaimer: I use Nikon cameras (though not for video).
  - blhack 17y ago
    Do you mean a firmware update? I hadn't heard anything about that (but would love to) Do you have a link? My googling is failing me :(
    - swilliams 17y ago
      Yeah, I looked too, I might have misremembered, or been thinking of D3s or something. Bummer.
yread 17y ago
A friend of mine has a Canon SX1 which also has full HD video and it looks great. Sometimes the video looks even better than the pictures

anigbrowl 17y ago

Yes, it does; but it also can shoot video. I recently worked on a feature shot with a similar camera, and own one myself for the same reason. Why use it this way? 3 reasons. 1. cost - it's dirt cheap compared to equivalent camcorders, and there is a very wide selection of lenses and accessories. Not as well optimized for the needs of moving pictures as other lenses (which have fewer glass elements but are easier to focus thanks to the way they are constructed) but nowhere near as expensive either. for perspective, a set of cine primes (fixed focal length lenses built for film use with industry-standard mounting connectors) can cost $250,000...or more. you can buy/rent and insure good quality still lenses for vastly less, and the disadvantages they impose are not all that serious. 2. Portability. a small indie film crew is 10 people and the camera is very obvious. A small crew shooting with a DSLR and an audio recorder can be as few as 3 people, which means you can shoot a scene in the middle of a busy street without attracting much attention. It is just so much more convenient, and saves even more money and time. the only downside to this is the ego sacrifice required to give up a big important-looking camera and the support staff required to babysit it. Instead you can just get a few of these things and shoot from multiple angles simultaneously which is an absolute godsend for editors, actors, producers, etc. Industry folk do love their high-tech gear but until recently things were at a pitch where the gear had to some extent become an end in itself and one had to spend a lot of money just to set it up every day before you photographed a single frame of the actual subject matter. 3. Light. These newer cameras have big sensors (the Canon 5DII in particular has a very large sensor for the available price) which means they can get a good-looking image with way less light than a typical pro video camera (and in turn that makes it easier to control the focus of the image). So you don't need truckloads full of lights...or the time to set the up...or all the noise of a generator to power them...or a bunch of grips to lift and carry them...and you don't have a forest of aluminum stands with lights and reflectors all over the set: which means you have a great deal more freedom in where you put the camera and how you move it around. In short, they are awesome. There are some limitations, and some things you have to do differently in order to maintain image quality compared to other methods...but they are not that onerous and the cost savings are enormously worth it. I would never want to go back to the style of a big industrial set festooned with heavy equipment and crews. Small is beautiful.